Ted it is answered in Green under each part.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 17, 2017 - 11:55 am: Edit

Yeah. When I checked that message for rulings in green yesterday it wasn't there. Today it is.

/me shrugs.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 - 09:35 am: Edit

Thomas Matthew:

Re: Heavy War Cruisers in Battlegroups.

Uh, what is a Heavy War Cruiser? Is that something new added to the game, or are you referring to New Heavy Cruisers?

If it's a NCA you're asking about, I don't know the rule reference, but no, it can't go into a battlegroup. I remember it was discussed before. There was even a proposal to allow one NCA in a battlegroup to lead the group (replacing the CWL?), but that idea was nixed. Too bad, really, I think it would be a good addition (and in fact, I do allow it in my homebrew ruleset).

But if it's Heavy War Cruisers, well, I dunno what they are so we'll have to wait on Chuck for the answer.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 - 09:44 am: Edit

They're from one of the later R modules from SFB, I forget which.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 - 10:28 am: Edit

HCWs are in SFB Module R12.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 - 08:45 pm: Edit

In Captain's Log #52, the Romulan GHC and GHJ are listed as battle group eligible (by having the squiggly S symbol is the notes). The GryphonHawk is a Heavy War Cruiser, so the answer appears to be yes.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 15, 2017 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Peter, on your tug question, might want to check on the BBS archives if you haven't already. I seem to recall this kind of question on retreat and tugs being asked and answered in a game between myself and Richard Eitzen. I got all excited because allowing a supply tug to retreat made it immune to death so long as it was accompanied by a few other ships.

IIRC, it was ruled that the tug was allowed to retreat.

Your question is not the same, but referencing that ruling might have some pertinent info for FEAR or FEDS.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, May 15, 2017 - 07:03 pm: Edit

I have checked the archives (and the master errata file); the problem is that when you search for "tug+supply", you get, like, a thousand hits; when you search "tug+supply+movement" or "tug+supply+reaction" (or any number of various alternatives), you get exactly zero hits (maybe the search engine only allows for a single "+" sign? I dunno?)

Tugs are clearly allowed to retreat in the 2K10 rulebook. Tugs are clearly not allowed to move by any means on the player turn that they are declared supply points. What is unclear (due to the way the rule is written) is if on the not player turn of the tug if they can react move.

I mean, like, to be fair, the intention is that they probably can't, but it is unclear enough that it seems worth asking the question.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Im unsure of the intention, Peter.

412.22 specifically says "Player Turn" when it could have simply said "Turn".

So during the Player Turn it has to be stationary.

However, if somehow combat ends up in that hex during the Player Turn, the Tug is able to retreat according to 412.23, which I assume is a specific reference which overrules a general reference?

During the Other Player Turn there does not seem to be any restrictions that I can find. Only the specific example of 412.23 where the Tug loses its status as a supply point if it has to retreat.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 15, 2017 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Peter, if you haven't already try doing a search for just "412.22" only. Searching by pure rule number in the F&E topic usually bears fruit for me.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 01:49 am: Edit

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/29938.html?ThursdayMarch0120120231pm

This covers someone wanting to appeal against a decision that said Supply mission Tugs cannot React during the opponent's turn.

And he makes a fair point. 412.22 says Player Turn. It has always said Player Turn. There is no reference to Other Player's Turn, and it does not simply say Turn.

So for sure we know the Tug cant move during the Player Turn. Except that 412.23 says that if the Tug retreats from combat it loses its Supply status.

But during the Opposition Player Turn there is no reference to what the Tug can or cannot do. Other than 412.23 saying that the Tug can retreat from combat and lose its Supply status.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Monday, May 15, 2017 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Peter:

I'm no rules expert, so this is a gut feeling on this, and by no means any form of definitive statement.

Gut feeling is that Reaction Movement is a voluntary movement by the player, and would be banned by (412.22).

Retreating or withdrawal before combat (and being forced to abandon the supply point mission) is involuntary, due to enemy action, and therefore allowed.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 04:01 am: Edit

Q: How does one get the URL of a given message on this BBS? I wanted to post a link to the message itself. Thanks.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 06:41 am: Edit

Chuck, When you know where the information is. Say an F&E Q&A Archive through July 02, 2016 because the answer to the question is dated May 16th, 2016. go back to the Q&A page with the archive dates and right click on the "Archive through July 02, 2016" link, choose copy link address, then you can paste that link address in the appropriate link formatting. Example using the above date:

Here is the Link example

I find it helpful to use two windows when doing so.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 07:14 am: Edit

I would partially agree with Mike...

Reaction (and Withdrawal prior to combat) is voluntary - and therefore caught by 412.22.

Retreating (although the decision to retreat is voluntary) is involuntary from the point the retreater doesn't decide what is retreating (i.e. it's all or nothing - whereas reaction and withdrawal can be between those two extremes).

For what it's worth - I also dislike the idea a Tug can supply 1,000 ships.....and can then retreat behind a single ship and always be safe.

Doesn't sound right.

And there is an easy fix - and Tug doing some of the missions is considered a Slow Unit until the start of that players next turn (base upgrades could be included for example).

i.e. the Tug has huge supply pods or construction pods attached to it.....

The Tug might still retreat - but at least the attacker would get a chance to kill it.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 08:04 am: Edit

Jason wrote:
>>
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/29938.html?ThursdayMarch0120120231pm
>>

What witchcraft did you use to find that? I spent, like, 20 minutes searching for stuff, and was constantly befuddled.

Although, to be fair, I didn't do as Ted suggested, and search for the rule number...

>>But during the Opposition Player Turn there is no reference to what the Tug can or cannot do. Other than 412.23 saying that the Tug can retreat from combat and lose its Supply status.>>

Like, I think in the end, the wording is kind of vague (i.e. why do the rues specifically use the words "Player Turn" when they could have just used the word "Turn", when "Player Turn" and "Turn" are different things, and if the designers meant "Turn", they could have just used "Turn"); I feel the rule could use a specific clarification in this instance.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 09:53 am: Edit

Peter, I searched for the rule number

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 11:57 am: Edit

Sigh, yeah, I didn't think of that till Ted pointed it out.

When I tried that, I got instant hits that were useful.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Jeffry,

On your starbase G attack question, I believe I know the answers.

First, note that a SB is limited to just two Gs on it. Even if more are available in the support echelon, on any given battle round the SB can have no more than two Gs.

Second, the rules specify an "defender casualty" when the attacker roll sufficiently high. You can take that casualty in any legal way. Which means you have the option of taking a SIDS or taking a G as the casualty. Note that only one SIDS can be scored on any battle round.

I have a tac note on this somewhere, I think. In my personal opinion, if you only have one G left and your enemy has many (or the potential to heal them) you are sometimes better off leaving the one G alive and taking the SIDS. The reason is that the defending G will force a -1 penalty on the *next* battle round if it is still alive, which will likely make it harder for the enemy to score another G attack.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Ted,

But to your last point, what if your enemy scored two "defender casualty" hits on you. MUST you take both your remaining G and the starbase SIDS?

That's the issue I'm trying to understand.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Jeffrey, no. Once you take a SIDS, the enemy is done because you cannot do more than one SIDS. His additional rolls are meaningless.

Look at it this way. The die rolls are not a concerted attack by all the Gs at the same time. The die rolls are evaluated one at a time. So, technically you need to announce and then roll an attack, evaluate it's results, and then announce and roll subsequent attacks in the same combat round. Once you get a SIDS, you are done.

Many players fudge and to speed things up roll all the dice at once. Which is fine - as long as both players realize that any die subsequent rolls are invalid once the SIDS is taken.

So, if *either* player cares about the advantage of seeing all the rolls and *then* taking the SIDS, then the one who cares needs to insist on making the attacks one at a time so you don't have that prior knowledge.

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Ted,

Okay! That's exactly what I wanted to know.

Thanks a bunch.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, June 06, 2017 - 06:17 pm: Edit

I get confused as to the use of admirals and battlegroups for a PURSUED battle force and their effects.

Can anyone give a comprehensive example?

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, June 07, 2017 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Reserve Pursued Pursuing
Admiral No Yes No
Battlegroup Yes No No

Or, Admirals only with the pursued battleforce, and battlegroups only in reserves.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 08, 2017 - 07:30 am: Edit

Rules not with me, but I thought Battlgroups could be used in the Perusing Force...but only due to the extra ship effect.

i.e. A force of 3 x CW (assume Command Rating 4) and 3 x DW could legally peruse -r put another way Flag+CR+Battlegroup additional Ship).

You wouldn't be able to get more than 6 ships in the persuit force still though.

(So if the force was a BC, 3 x CW, 3 x DW - the extra ship would only be included if the BC didn't persue)